I know you're being facetious, but I'd be surprised if allowing them to publish didn't implicitly grant them rights to republish in different forums.Javaness2 wrote:I sometimes wonder if I could ask the BGA to redact every copy of the British Go Journal they placed online with an article I penguined in it. Everything I submitted was done on the understanding that it would be to their own limited audience and confined to the printed journal. Then they all went online ...
The history of go rules
-
hyperpape
- Tengen
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:24 pm
- Rank: AGA 3k
- GD Posts: 65
- OGS: Hyperpape 4k
- Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
- Has thanked: 499 times
- Been thanked: 727 times
Re: The history of go rules
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3374 times
Re: The history of go rules
What I was talking about was the use of the group tax as we know it under modern stone scoring. Ancient scoring, as indicated by the Dunhuang scroll, made no explicit mention of a group tax. The players actually, or in effect, play until neither side is willing to make a play (both filled to capacity). With an independently live group, that means playing on until there are two one-point eyes. With a seki, it means playing on until each group has zero or one eye, depending upon circumstances. (I think that J. F. should not have used the English "string", since a living group may consist of two strings, even after "filling to capacity".) Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.prokofiev wrote:I agree it makes sense not to tax seki groups from a stone counting perspective, just as it makes sense not to count eyes in seki (Chen mentions this later, though without giving an explicit game example).Bill Spight wrote:The seki is eyeless. If you talk about eyes needed for life not counting, no points would be "taxed". But the group tax in stone scoring did apply to seki. Even though the Black stones in the seki make up two strings that cannot be connected, Black is considered to have only one group in seki. Since each player has one group in the seki, the group tax cancels out. That's a strange way to do it, but it works.
You mention cancelling group taxes, though. There's none of that here. Chen get agreement of the final black and white scores (not just their difference) with the source by taxing black for two groups and white for three (the numbers of non-seki groups).
Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Javaness2
- Gosei
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:48 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 111 times
- Been thanked: 326 times
- Contact:
Re: The history of go rules
It is a bit facetious, yes 
Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!
Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...
Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...
hyperpape wrote:I know you're being facetious, but I'd be surprised if allowing them to publish didn't implicitly grant them rights to republish in different forums.Javaness2 wrote:I sometimes wonder if I could ask the BGA to redact every copy of the British Go Journal they placed online with an article I penguined in it. Everything I submitted was done on the understanding that it would be to their own limited audience and confined to the printed journal. Then they all went online ...
-
TMark
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:06 am
- GD Posts: 484
- Location: The shores of sunny Clapham
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 283 times
- Contact:
Re: The history of go rules
[quote="Javaness2"]It is a bit facetious, yes Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!
Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...
What, they get cited by the Ig Nobel committee as also-rans?
Best wishes.
Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...
What, they get cited by the Ig Nobel committee as also-rans?
Best wishes.
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk
http://www.gogod.co.uk
-
Javaness2
- Gosei
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:48 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 111 times
- Been thanked: 326 times
- Contact:
Re: The history of go rules
Ig-nobody :p When something gets additionally published elsewhere, as the author, it is quite distasteful to me. Still, it's hard to care much over the work.
-
prokofiev
- Lives with ko
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:03 pm
- Rank: decent sdk
- GD Posts: 138
- Has thanked: 67 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
Re: The history of go rules
Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.
I agree this all makes sense if coming from stone scoring ("your score is the number of stones you have on the board"). Stone scoring seems quite elegant from a simplicity of rules standpoint; even area scoring needs extra definitions. I wonder how much strategy would differ from current go with the small extra incentive to stay connected and cut your opponent.Bill Spight wrote:Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.
-
Javaness2
- Gosei
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:48 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 111 times
- Been thanked: 326 times
- Contact:
Re: The history of go rules
I always wondered how much strategy would differ using the Tibetan ko rule, but the trouble with these thoughts is, nobody ever tries to see.
Re: The history of go rules
Your undertand is quite right!!!!You said what I want to express by my poor English.prokofiev wrote:Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.
I agree this all makes sense if coming from stone scoring ("your score is the number of stones you have on the board"). Stone scoring seems quite elegant from a simplicity of rules standpoint; even area scoring needs extra definitions. I wonder how much strategy would differ from current go with the small extra incentive to stay connected and cut your opponent.Bill Spight wrote:Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.
Note : Group tax is just a simplification technique of counting stone invented in a certain period.
ANd by the way ,all the go game termes in Chinese are very interesting ,very easy to understand,very visualized for starters ！！！！They have their own meaning in Chinese in our life like seki ==both alive.
Re: The history of go rules
like air（liberty），it's exact;.it's easier to understand live and dead stone ,and others.it;s the fountainhead of the go game,it has the same signification as it in GongFu ,Chinese medecine .it's a very important concept in Chinese culture.
Group tax ,i think ,is called return(repay) stone better according to the scoring process in ancient
Group tax ,i think ,is called return(repay) stone better according to the scoring process in ancient
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3374 times
Re: The history of go rules
They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.prokofiev wrote:Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
jts
- Oza
- Posts: 2672
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:17 pm
- Rank: kgs 6k
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 310 times
- Been thanked: 637 times
Re: The history of go rules
Ah, but they also would have given white two points of territory, so that the local score comes out to zero?Bill Spight wrote: They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.
Re: The history of go rules
Group tax proucess：
at the end of the game,after scoring by Chinese rule ,you must compare the groups the each player has .when one side (A player)has more groups than other (B player),A gives(subtract) a number of stones he has scored to the other player B ,the number is how many groups A has more than B.
at the end of the game,after scoring by Chinese rule ,you must compare the groups the each player has .when one side (A player)has more groups than other (B player),A gives(subtract) a number of stones he has scored to the other player B ,the number is how many groups A has more than B.
-
Mef
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 852
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:34 am
- Rank: KGS [-]
- GD Posts: 428
- Location: Central Coast
- Has thanked: 201 times
- Been thanked: 333 times
Re: The history of go rules
All right then, let's up the ante (=Bill Spight wrote:They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.prokofiev wrote:Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.
How about this one?
(Position taken from SL - Strange Sekis) Does B get charged for 4 groups or 3?
-
ez4u
- Oza
- Posts: 2419
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:15 pm
- Rank: Jp 6 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: ez4u
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
- Has thanked: 2354 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
Re: The history of go rules
Go ahead and specify the count under the different alternatives and state which one you prefer. There is no such thing as a "right" answer, right? It is just that under rule set A the result is X while under rule set B the result is Y. So... what is the point?
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3374 times
Re: The history of go rules
Three.Mef wrote:All right then, let's up the ante (=
How about this one?
(Position taken from SL - Strange Sekis) Does B get charged for 4 groups or 3?
I would not particularly be surprised if some strange seki made the modern group tax give a different answer from not counting eye points necessary for life.
Does Black have one group or two?
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.